Bridge and Bridge

In *Bridge & Bridge*, the Family Court of Australia considered long-term parenting arrangements for five children. The applicant father, Mr Bridge, sought orders for the children to live with the respondent mother, Ms Bridge, with whom they resided, and for the parents to share equal parental responsibility. He also sought specific time with the children. The mother sought sole parental responsibility for the children and opposed the father spending time with them. An Independent Children’s Lawyer was appointed to represent the children's interests.

The court was required to determine to whom parental responsibility for the children should be allocated and what, if any, time the children should spend with the father. This involved considering the paramountcy of the children's best interests, as outlined in sections 60B and 60CA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and the primary and additional considerations set out in section 60CC of the Act. The court also had to assess the impact of the parties' significant disagreements, particularly concerning religion, and the father's lack of participation in the proceedings and failure to exercise his time with the children under interim orders.

Hannam J noted the father's consistent failure to appear at court hearings, including the scheduled commencement of a Less Adversarial Trial, and his lack of participation in the final stages of the proceedings. The court also took into account the father's failure to exercise his time with the children pursuant to interim orders for a significant period, and the lack of communication between the parties. The mother's uncontested complaints about the father's unreliability, disregard for the children's religious beliefs, and alleged inadequate care were also considered. The court discharged all previous orders and made new orders that the children live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility. The father was granted limited, supervised time with the children, with provisions for suspension if he failed to attend on two consecutive occasions. The court also ordered that the children have telephone communication with the father in accordance with their wishes.